Nick Berg went to Cornell. Does anyone know if he was in a fraternity?

i don't think so. these people are terrorists, as if they thinking logically and coherently was one of their good points. justification is probably isn't something they need to commit these acts.

"Berg took college classes at Cornell, Drexel, the
University of Pennsylvania and the University of Oklahoma, though he never earned a degree. He helped set up electronics equipment at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000. He even made several trips to Third World countries; in Ghana, he taught villagers how to make bricks, and returned emaciated because he gave away most of his food, his father said. "

Also he was a man of faith, coincidentally the same faith as Daniel Pearl: Berg's father said his son was a practicing Jew and that ``there's a better chance than not'' that his captors knew it. ``If there was any doubt that they were going to kill him, that probably clinched it, I'm guessing,'' he said.

-Rudey

You know . .. this whole Hating the Jews thing is sooo 1940. you think people would move on by now. There are so many people we can hate for new and valid reasons that we don't need to hold onto centuries old stereotypes.

i was watching cnbc (i think) this morning and they were saying that there wasn't anything said about Berg in the Iraqi newspapers or websites. the major topic in thier newspapers was "the doctors are worried about Saudam Hussin's (sp?) health"

i couldn't watch the real tape, but i saw the pics after it happened and them holding his head.....my prayers.....

wow.. i can't even begin to comment :(

I felt sick to my stomach today. I was grabbing food when I overhear a girl talking about how the media makes everyone seem like a hero when they die. She went on to say this guy was there to make money - as if making money made him deserving of this.

I didn't know this girl, but all I wanted at that minnute was to punch her in the neck. Stupid idiot. Why are there always people out there that do this? This happened with Tillman. It happens all the time with absolute piece of sh*t who feel the need to revel in others' misfortune and horror by making them deserving of it.

-Rudey

I go with the "extremist" definition, add maniacs to the brew and the Ted Bundy correlation as well.

An editorial comment. AKA-MY OPINION. For the full effect, please click on the link!
http://www.treefort.org/~rgrogan/web/flagmusic.htm
I don't know how long this incident will strengthen our so called resolve, but about now I am sick to death of all this bashing against the US and our soldiers. What people fail to realize is no war can avoid innocents being maimed or killed. No war is clean. If anything, we have been too soft and should have struck harder
from the get go. HOW can you have a "PC" war?!?!?!?
If we could go back in time and "torture" someone into telling us about 9-11, I'd say, "Give ME the darn cattle prod!"
Is it right-who knows, but I'm leaning towards the "greater good" theory on this subject.

The excuse that our actions incited those animals to MUTILATE Nick Berg makes me want to VOMIT! As it was pointed out, the Pearlman tragedy was PRIOR to any of those photos breaking.

The "plots" that are coming to light as reported in various countries, reestablishing cells and actively recruiting more people to perform Jihad should get your attention!

It does not matter at this point if you believe the war was justified or not-MOOT POINT!
By choice or design-This IS the time-this IS the stand. If we fail-we will NEVER know what freedom- Good old 4th of July, flag waiving, picnic in the park, AMERICAN FREEDOM-means again!

JAM, just wondering, is the author trying to say that the bashing of the Abu Gharib prison guards is not warranted? Most of the coverage when it pertains to Abu Gharib is squarely on the perpetrators.

The author should realized that the torture is more then what have been shown to the public. Those pictures, according to many Senators that have seen it, are more distrubing. There are now reports of murders and rapes in the prison.

The Berg's murder and the Abu Gharib torures/rapes/murders are independently outreagous. In both cases, they need to be investigated, and the killers and perpetraors should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. To say otherwise in either case is unacceptable.

I just can't watch it. I also can't look at the pictures of the prisoner abuse. I cannot fathom that a human being could be so cruel and heartless to another human being.
There are reports surfacing now that Berg was offered a flight out of Iraq by the U.S. government but refused because he felt the trip to the airport would be dangerous. He also traveled around pretty much freely and unguarded, something that definitely should not have been done. Whether it was out of naivety or bravado, we'll never know. What does matter is that this was horribly tragic. I think in the future Americans working in Iraq will be more apt to heed the advice of the State Dept. and other authorities.
The Berg family definitely needs to be in our prayers.

JAM, just wondering, is the author trying to say that the bashing of the Abu Gharib prison guards is not warranted? Most of the coverage when it pertains to Abu Gharib is squarely on the perpetrators.

No, the "author" is not saying that.

The author should realized that the torture is more then what have been shown to the public. Those pictures, according to many Senators that have seen it, are more distrubing. There are now reports of murders and rapes in the prison.

The author has heard this from a very credible source (as well as others...FINALLY) and believes it is true.;)

The Berg's murder and the Abu Gharib torures/rapes/murders are independently outreagous. In both cases, they need to be investigated, and the killers and perpetraors should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. To say otherwise in either case is unacceptable.

This is where the author is uncertain.
Yes, I believe there is a line that one should not cross, EVEN when dealing with terrorist. The photos yet to be shown -at least I haven't seen the new ones-will most certainly show that the line WAS crossed. What that line is, probably varies from individual to individual.

To ME, all the sexual situations for ANY prisoner is wrong, WRONG, wrong! Random brutality is as well. Yet, I do believe there is a time and place for the use of forceful persuasion-truth serum-isolation-and psychological threat. I also think, percentage wise, REGARDLESS of the RCRC views, this is minuscule in terms of our forces. Sadly, there will be some who are pulled into this undeservedly.

The author is just sick and tired of taking crap from partisans and other countries, who, with this one example-the UN Oil for Food scandal-have their imprint on more extensive tortures because they helped perpetuate the heinous acts of dictators like Saddam.

Ps-The author has been tied up lately.:)

Some people are so intent on forgetting American suffering at the expense of the "human rights" of these prisoners.

In my opinion we should be burning whole villages down right now and not playing PR games with the world.

-Rudey

It's been done before.

See: "Calley, William"

See: "Vietnam, No Relation".

-Rudey

See: Wrong.

Actually I've called you on this repeatedly and you never can say why. So create a thread. Let's have fun. You always do claim I'm so very good at baiting people, so let me bait you again pops.

-Rudey

Um, no. The US does not negotiate with terrorists. Any such offer is nothing but posturing.

And Wahabism is sooooooo 1750. Can you say "regional clusterfuck?" I knew you could.

Ja Rudey

Jawohl! wir zerquetschen den widerstand! Für das Vaterland!

because afterall we have heard statements like yours before.... and the excuse that "I was following orders"....

Russ I think I like you :)

Actually no there is no comparison. But Nazi comparisons made by ignorant, and straight stupid, people have been used in the past Mr.Im45andStillInCollege.

-Rudey

That action will classified as a war crime. According to Article II, Sec 1.b of the Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, December 20, 1945, 3 Official Gazette Control Council for Germany 50-55 (1946):

Do you think the human rights commission of the UN would be upset? Perhaps Sudan will prosecute us hard.

Maybe the Security Council will be upset. I hear the Russians and Chinese might flip their lids.

War crimes, shmar crimes because countries that commit war crimes themselves have no right to judge us. The US only has to answer to itself at the very end of the day.

-Rudey

Seems pretty simple to me. Who are THEY? They are "the bad guys" as opposed to us who are supposed to be "the good guys".
As long as there are wars there will be bad guys and hopefully good guys as well.
We need to make certain that we live up to the obligation to be the good guys. This does not allow us the questionable luxury of bending or breaking our standards of conduct just because the bad guys ignore the rules of civilized conduct. If there is no difference then what's the point of all of this anyway.
Now, I can tell you from first hand experience that your Army has by and large conducted itself in a manner of which you all can be very proud. I am appalled by the conduct of a few guards with respect to the Iraqi prisoners. I full well expect that the UCMJ will be applied harshly to set the tone of what MUST be the norm of our conduct. I full well expect that those who instigated, condoned, or ignored dishonorable acts will be delt with severely. I also expect that we will continue to root out terrorists and bring them to justice.
I see no comparison between the scum who murdered an American and these cretinous guards. (Please note use of word "MURDERED". Please remember that only a legitimate government can execute anyone. Homicide admits murder or manslaughter. Execution is a legal procedure reserved for governments. Gangs of thugs and terrorists can only do murder or manslaughter) (As an OBTW, I am pretty much opposed to capital punishment in general but I have little or no problem with what happens when soldiers conduct legitimate combat operations). I am horrified by the actions of the terrorists and I am disgusted by the actions of our few rotten apples. This is of great concern to me because it is axiomatic that a large group of armed people must operate under absolute rules of honorable and disciplined conduct or we face the alternative of a mob with weapons and training in how to use them. Besides all that we come back to the basic point here: We are the good guys. We cannot tolerate those who would corrupt that simple reality, WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS.
Rambling on a bit, but I needed to say a couple of things. Now I need to say a prayer for a guy who got caught by the bad guys and was murdered by them. Orate fratres...

There is a lot of haze about the Americans holding him - a haze which might cast blame on the US Administration.

His family deserves every right to know and the US should give this investigation much higher priority than that of any guards.

-Rudey

DekeGuy.

Well Done.

I think part of the point that enlightenment was trying to make is that an us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys is overly simplistic in regards to the entire situation in Iraq (not so much in regards to the Nick Berg situation, which even my bleeding heart can't justify in ANY way). The guys that killed Nick Berg think that they're the "good guys" and we're the "bad guys." Now I think that while whether or not we're "the good guys" is up for debate . . . it's pretty clear that anybody who takes a knife to an innocent man's neck is not part of the "good guys." But that doesn't stop them from thinking so.


I agree with swissmiss in regards to a LOT of the stuff that's been going on lately, but particularly in regards to this -- I don't understand how anybody could be that cruel to another human being regardless of their political views. It's just sick.

sugar and spice
Actually, the question here is rather simplistic. My point is that while there will always be bad guys we must make certain that we are the good guys. Some of our people have let us down badly and we need to correct that. There are generally accepted norms of civilized behavior which are equally valid among Iraqis, Yanks, and everyone, for that matter. The terrorists have routinely and consistently acted in a barbaric manner and brought shame and dishonor to those they claim to represent. Our own idiots have also brought shame and dishonor on us. It is a very inexact comparison since the terrorists do loathsome acts as a matter of business as usual while our idiots are an aberration from the norm. We need to clense this stain while recognizing that the vast majority of our troops really live up to the ideal of being the good guys. We need to continue the fight against global terrorism AND we need to come to the fight with completely clean hands. It really is that simple

Apparently you missed the point of my post. My post was meant to draw attention to the fact that you have been advocating actions or methods that contravine the "Laws of War", in much the same light that the German army (not the SS, for them there was no debate) debated the bounds of what they could and should do to counter-act what they classified as acts of terrorism against them. It is important to remember the lessons of history, lest they be repeated... or worse ignored.

See the posts by Dekeguy, because he is coming from the same view as me... that it is important for the forces fighty tyranny and terrorism to maintain the moral high gorund as well as the ideals that we espouse.

Remember the maxim: "Be careful that you do not let your hate consume you and turn you into what you despise".

actually...troops follow orders and protocol, and technically any soldier that does so is being a "good" soldier.

my point is that we must be sure who we're talking about, and not speak in of people in such vague, broad terms

example...you say "we" are the good guys, and if "we" are the troops, then yes...but if "we" are those who make the policy that guides the troops, then that's a different matter. If you're typical Iraqi citizen (not that I personally know), do you think you would still view the world in such a manner? If one of your family members was killed by an American bomb, or were detained and totured, would you still view the United States as "the good guys?"

I support the troops, and I want them all to come home safe. I love my country, and I love the high ideals which we are supposed to represent. But idealism loses value with no action. How free are the Iraqi people now? Their oil money is being taken, they have no law, and their country is under occupation. Granted, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but how free are the Iraqi people now?

I believe it is my duty to love my country enough to criticize when something isn't right- and this ain't right.

" . . . and where the Devil does not exist it may be necessary to create him"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by enlightenment06
[B] If you're typical Iraqi citizen (not that I personally know), do you think you would still view the world in such a manner? If one of your family members was killed by an American bomb, or were detained and totured, would you still view the United States as "the good guys?"
========
Funny you should ask that. At the begining of World War Two the French had capitulated to the Germans. There was a real danger that the French Fleet based in Oran would be handed over to the Germans. The British demanded the surrender of the French who refused. The Royal Navy then attacked and sank the French Battle Fleet to prevent it from being taken over by the Germans. It was a sad day all around. Now to the point. My family have always considered the Brits to be on the side of right during WW II, or in other words the good guys. Our support for the Brits did not change because my French cousin died on the bridge of his ship that day.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...hlight=Vietnam

Read my second comment down the page.

By the way, don't bother "calling" me out on anything. I will respond to what I want, when and where I want to. In this case, however, it was done some weeks ago.

What I won't resort to is name calling, bandwagoning, glittering generalities, transference or and of the other propaganda techniques I studied as part of my Interpersonal Communications minor. I will give you my opinion and the reasons for it.

If you disagree, I will listen and consider your argument as long as it is presented at least semi-respectfully. If not, I may choose to ignore you.

I responded in that other thread.

-Rudey
--You must have been really fighting really hard on what to post to me if you took that long to write that; I admire your discipline pops.

Thanks.

The other possibility is that I was ignoring you.

All I said is that it took a lot for you to...in fact you had to tell me you were ignoring me, went to edit your earlier post, and all that so it's not the best discipline, but for now it'll do. I look forward to your post in the other thread.

-Rudey
--Graciously

Update from across the pond:

Daily Mirror editor resigns over abuse pictures

LONDON (Reuters) - Piers Morgan, the editor of the Daily Mirror, has resigned over publication of pictures of the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British troops that proved to be fake.

"The Board of Trinity Mirror has decided that it would be inappropriate for Piers Morgan to continue in his role as Editor of the Daily Mirror and he will therefore be stepping down with immediate effect," the newspaper said in a statement on Friday.

Gotta tell ya...with all of the electronic graphic tools available today, this stuff could become a nightmare, not only for publishers, but judges, etc.

Isn't it pretty easy to tell? I mean to the common eye it's difficult to see what someone did with a bootleg copy of photoshop, but to someone that has worked with that material before it shouldn't be too hard. Were the British photos even manipulated? I thought they were enacted...

-Rudey